Serps misselling update

EdInvestor

Telegraph


FSA ruling delayed: Which? to launch campaign.

Lack of documentation could mean companies cannot defend themselves against complaints, as with many endowments.

defender_of_the_weak

That will be the same which that recommended endowments in numerous articles and took the succesful campaign to have time bars abolished. This will also be the same outfit that publishes a table of endowment case handlers yet managed to miss my company as the cheapest in the UK despite being listed in a previous Guardian survey and numerous times in the Mail. When questioned as to how they managed to miss us (and informing us that the info would not be updated, its only a pdf file) I was informed that the survey was based on a mailing to the claims standards council. so fairly in depth research there then. The individual I spoke to also forgot that she appeared on the BBC and commented on the outcome of a case we appealed with the Financial Ombudsman Service but sadly she could not remember me or my company when this mailing was being organised.

Just trying to keep it balanced

Was SERPs mis-sold, yep absolutely, how many or what proportion, don't know, but given that I knew of advisers sitting in company canteens signing people up with little more that name address NI number and income there are probably more than a few who could claim. It should also not be forgotten that the company had a duty to keep the client appraised as to the changes that have occured over the last 18 years and if they have failed to do this because they sacked their salesforce or update their systems they should be held liable for failure to meet this duty of care

dunstonh

I wouldnt be surprised if Which? recommended contracting out and various providers over the years. Just like they did with endowments.

Which? are the masters of re-writing history to suit themselves.

Was SERPs mis-sold, yep absolutely, how many or what proportion, don't know, but given that I knew of advisers sitting in company canteens signing people up with little more that name address NI number and income there are probably more than a few who could claim.

In the early days, many companies didnt factfind or report on contracting out. However, the Govt has to take some of the blame for the way contracting out was done. It is possible that it could be that reason why the FSA are being cautious in their final report.

Which? carried out its own research on 108 people of which 70 per cent were found to be worse off by contracting out. It admits that some people will do better outside the state system, but most will not and that they were probably unaware of the situation when they agreed to contract out of Serps.

That data fits but in context, we just had a stockmarket crash and recovery is improving the stats all the time for those that are contracted out. Pensions are a long term contract and you will get periods like this.

Yet Brown has the original fact find document and other illustrations concerning his client which were sent to him more than a year ago by the society. He is at a loss to know why it says it cannot find sufficient evidence and is now fighting for compensation after being informed by the Derbyshire that his client will receive just £174 by way of redress. "My client has been charged a policy fee of £29.16 per month, in addition to the management charge of 1 per cent of the fund's value. It is derisory payment and the monthly fee is outrageous – and it is not on the fact find."

This claims handler is an idiot. What the person is charged has nothing to do with it being good or bad. Its what they are better/worse off by that matters. In this case £174. Of course the claims handler is only going to get around £30 for that so probably has more to do with it.
Since when do fees on products have to appear on the factfind!

I have a dim view of many of these claims companies and its only DOTW, who seems to act in a professional manner, which keeps me from saying they are all rogues.

EdInvestor

It is possible that it could be that reason why the FSA are being cautious in their final report

Then again it might be that they are going to be getting a new boss.The smart money seems to be on Sir James Crosby, ex boss of HBOS ( now I wonder if they did much SERPS misselling...? )

Expect more "wait and see" from the FSA until things are settled.

defender_of_the_weak

Dunston, getting any government to admit its failings just aint going to happen. For their part in their mess they heavily advertised to 'free your pension' with a PPP, made c/out attractive by giving incentives, and told everybody to stay with their employer scheme because it was 'guaranteed' as opposed to a personal pension. Even their own ivestigations show they were at fault but they admit nothing.

I cannot help but think this claim handler has either been mis-quoted or is an idiot as you describe. Charges of £360 a year plus the 1% seem rather high for this style of contract.

Your point about long term contracts is true but the problem is that people look at these things today see a problem and want it addressing now as we have seen with endowments. Mix in the distrust and the disgraceful way many have been treated with time bars etc and they just don't trust the providers anymore